Katherine Marsh-

You write: "To be fair, especially to Clinton to whom much of Obama's victory is owed (by virtue of airing potential scandals early and forcing him to compete in all fifty states), the polarizing stereotypes that plague women--ballbuster, ditz, diva, bitch--are stunningly hard to avoid."

First, let's get one thing straight: Obama owes nothing, absolutely nothing, to Hillary for this victory. If anything, she ran an appallingly ugly (and endless) campaign, the same kind of campaign that the Bushies had run in the past, a campaign full of distortions and outright lies (she was responsible for the peace talks in Ireland, she landed under gunfire in Tuzla), as well as arguments based entirely upon logical fallacy--ad hominem attacks, insinuations, evasions (refusing to clearly state that she knew Obama was not a Muslim, forwarding a photo to Drudge of BHO dressed in supposedly Muslim garb)--not to mention, claiming more experience than her opponent when she herself had served fewer years in elected office than did Obama.

And the ugliest of the ugly: HRC proclaiming that the GOP nominee was more ready to be president than her Dem rival.

One might argue over whether Hillary's campaign was or was not sleazy, but this last transgression--giving preference over one's own Dem rival to the nominee of the other party--this clearly crossed a line.

These lines of attack, in the end, did not work. But not for lack of effort, endless effort--indeed, Hillary failed to concede, repeatedly, even after it was obvious that the contest was over, even on the night of the final primary.

As for, as you put it, "the polarizing stereotypes that plague women," Hillary, by her actions, turned herself into a walking, polarizing stereotype. One might argue over whether she deserved to be called the names people flung at her (even as Tina Fey embraced one of those names--"bitch--on HRC's behalf).  But by the end of the primary season, it was clear that Hillary deserved a whole hell of a lot worse.

"Sarah Palin, who was clearly out of her depth and shamelessly allowed herself to be used as a token, may have singlehandedly reversed Clinton's feminist gains."

Um, no. (First off, "Clinton's feminist gains?" As in, now every American girl can grow up dreaming of marrying a successful man and someday inheriting his job? But I digress. Simply by absorbing a year's worth of attacks, Hillary probably has made it much easier for any future woman to compete on the merits, for which I give Hillary much props.) I understand the complaints about Palin and willing self-tokenism. But Palin's manifest failures in the campaign are not widely seen to have anything to do with her gender as such. She was polarizing and ultimately unpopularizing not because she was a woman, nor because she was branded with any uniquely feminine stereotypes, but because of what she said and did and how she said and did it. Sarah Palin failed on her own merits, and is widely seen as having failed on her own merits, and from a feminist point of view that is not a reversal. That is victory.

(Don't believe me? I would simply point out that Sarah Palin is not the only Republican this year to have faced widespread ridicule for a shopping spree at the Mall of America Saks, and the other one was a man.)

I respectfully disagree with the two gentlemen who responded before me. All I can say is, amen, sister. Amen.

Good lord, women were all over this campaign, key spokes people, candidates, foreign policy advisors,  whatever. The point of Obama's election is that people in general (by no means universally) ignored his skin color when making a choice. The ideal for women would be that gender would similarly be overlooked. And while Hillary showed she could be tough, she also showed how NOT to the woman in the race. She was the incumbent, with enormous political resources at her back and she did not win. This is not because she was a woman, but because she wasn't the best candidate, in the opinion of the voters. But she was a serious candidate, and gender and race card playing aside (can we drop that metaphor now forever?) the candidates ran tough campaigns and the Party came together after. There is now a raft of women who can seriously contest the office next time around, god-forbid starting with Sarah Palin in 2012.

I suppose the comfort must be that a woman competed on absolutely equal footing with a man for the Democratic nomination this year. Obama's general landslide vindicates Hillary's primary loss, in a way. I don't think anyone will believe in future years that she lost because she was a woman, or because she ran a womanly campaign, or for any reason other than that she was facing a political wunderkind of the first order.

It was also inspiring to watch Tina Fey pivot from being Hillary's most ardent supporter to Palin's worst nightmare. Call me a sucker for a girl in glasses, but I thought this was a brilliant repudiation of identity politics and a shining moment for feminism in our media. I think it will be a long time before the Republicans indulge in such tokenism again, but I do not think it will be long before more and stronger Democratic women make their appearance on the national stage.

I do not think Michelle Obama will sit on her hands for the next eight years, either; it's easy to imagine her following in Hillary's footsteps. Despite the disappointments, I think 2008 will be remembered as a good year for women in politics.

I thought Palin was actually good for feminism.  After a wave of competent, talented women in politics it was important to prove that women can be venal incompetents as well.  Positive stereotypes are still stereotypes.

Mcgumb: and I respectfully disagree with you.  JoCuo and Rhubs get it right on both Mrs. Clinton and the Palin.  And I say this as someone who began 2008 fully supporting Mrs. Clinton (I'm allergic to oratory), who thought that the piling on after Iowa on Mrs. Clinton was outrageous, who was glad to see her win NH.  But then came SC and the rest of the campaign; her "White Americans" statement, her "as far as I know" qualification, her idiotic insistence on 35 years of experience ... not to mention the utter sleaze of her campaign operations (Mark Penn?!?) just pushed me out and away.

As for the Palin, I refused to watch her vomitous Convention performance, but the aftermath - it was pathetic.  She deserves to be consigned to the ninth circle of political hell because of her unjustified arrogance, her lack of ethics and her evident absence of shame - man or woman, I would have had the same reaction to anyone with the same qualities.  She exploited the fact that she got Old Man McCain a hard-on the only time they met, and for that alone, she and McCain have set back the cause of women in politics by a generation.  Had POWPOW selected the odious Phyllis Schlafly I would have had more respect for him than going with the Palin woman.

Palin's failure serves women well. Clinton goes back to the Senate to serve ably. Palin goes back to Alaska to shoot moose. Yesterday the voters indicated that they understood the difference.

Palin was the perfect object lesson for women and leadership. If you want to be a leader, you don't get to be one by winking and parroting "You betcha!." America passed with flying colors; we are a lot smarter than many of us have given us credit for.

Women all over America owe Sarah Palin a debt of gratitude, because we (the electorate) now explicitly demand that you (women) succeed on merit. The timing is propitious, given the daunting tasks facing us. We need fixes for the financial markets, crappy schools, crashing fisheries, evaporating retirement funding, nonexistent or substandard or prohibitively expensive health care, homeless veterans, climate change, oil addiction, unemployment, drought, crumbling infrastructure, Afghanistan, and the obesity, diabetes, and pending Alzheimers pandemics, to name a few.

Feel free to get back to me with data, analysis, and action plans re the above.

"For anyone who has ever felt--because of ..., sexual orientation...like an "other," last night was a triumphant night," And that would be because that was the day that California, Florida and Arizona banned gay marriage?

What would make me feel triumphant would be to be able to vote on the legality of your marriage.

Icarusr,

I guess I should be more precise in my disagreement. I was just being lazy before. What JoCuo said about how divisive Clinton's elongated campaign was, I agree with.  As angry as I was at her and her husband at the time, I do believe in the end it helped Obama tremendously by making the him/Dems organize in all 50 states and by airing thorny issues during the primaries making them irrelevant in the general. So I agree with Kathleen Parker on that and disagree with JoCuo.

As to Rhubarbs, I deeply hope he and you are correct. Unfortunately, I don't think we have reached a point that women and minorities aren't stereotyped and held to different standards, as open-minded you gentlemen all are. And thanks for that too!

But as a woman, I was deeply deeply appalled and terrified by her. She is the anti-feminist, woefully unqualified and no amount of cramming made her qualified or even capable of articulating an intelligent thought beyond Wasilla-related issues. As you point out, she used her feminine wiles to give an old man a hard-on to win a spot on the ticket. Good GOD she *winked* at the camera during the debates, thinking America would also be so easily swayed. The reasons she gave for qualifications were utterly laughable and embarrassing. And as a woman I was simply terrified that McCain/Palin would win and these neanderthals would get to define feminism and femininity. And as a woman, I was so embarrassed that she was so clearly a token - I thought we had moved beyond that as a gender. Her breath-taking arrogance and self-regard was vomitous (as you said) and I couldn't have been happier to have her vanity, obsequeousness, and utter stupidity on full display during that Sarkozy prank call. And yet, I cringed because I don't want a woman to behave so grossly for all the public to see. So I disagree with you and Rhubarbs but hope hope hope I am wrong and you are right.

Whew, long post. To sum up and why I said amen to Parker:

- I agree with Parker that Hillary began running on competence and succumbed to identify politics when she got tested and it was hugely disappointing. Obama did it exactly right: Recognition that his candidacy was historic but not the reason for it.

- I really really agree with Parker that we should bury identity politics forever and stop trying to out-victim each other.

- That Michelle is awesome and is going to be awesome as First Lady

- That Barack was deeply influenced by the women in his life and that is awesome

- I am so excited at his victory

- I really hope for a "post-feminist" female candidate in the mold of Obama

- Feminists need to stop sniping at each other and leave behind the politics of the 60's and reinvent movement

I'll stop now.....

I kind of wish such an article could have waited a few days, why go right back to identity politics the day after? Can't you just relish the moment for one day? When a black woman, or an Asian woman, or a hispanic woman from modest roots makes a serious run for the white house then I will get more stoked. Rich white women have far too much in common with rich white men. Lady de Rothschilds pronouncements are evidence enough of that.

Lets try focusing more on the women who have to clean the floor, then the woman in the boardroom suite who is angling to be the main boss.

Oh... I actually didn't read this last paragraph in JosephCuomo's post - I agree Hillary's campaign ended as the antithesis of feminism and she set the stage for a Palin-like token in the general.

And willliamyard, yes, I will be forever grateful to Americans for rejecting Palin for being unqualified, as well.

First off, don't forget Michelle. She's the one he actually CALLS his rock, you know. I didn't know how grateful I was to her for just existing, just being someone I could admire during all this until she came forward on that platform last night and I screamed myself hoarse, and clapped until my hands hurt.

Because triple F Hillary Clinton. She turned me into a misogynist there for awhile. Then Katie Couric set me straight.

And yardie, don't be too happy about Palin. She got as far as she did because of men - loads and loads of them - who were absolutely blinded by the starbursts. The ongoing level of - I don't know what - chivalry? - that kept a nation from absolutely driving her into the sea with whips and chains after those Couric interviews is proof of an insane double standard. Yes, a nation writhed, but if that had been a man, he would have been thrown off the ticket faster than you can say wtf. And probably jailed somehow.

We - like the gays - still have a long way to go. But, like the gays, we're lurching forward bit by bit, long arc and all that. It's going to be ok. And today is a good day.

Fuck yourself, fuck Hillary, and fuck Palin. Not 24 hours have passed and we're already soiling a triumphant moment...it's enough to drive one to the Republican Party (almost). Perhaps Obama should remove himself from office, so that Hillary can assume the control she deserves and is owed...

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” Clinton said.

Quayle wasn't thrown off the ticket after potatoegate.  I don't think McCain keeping Palin on had anything to do with her sex, it was because throwing her overboard would be like he rejecting all her hard-right admirers and he'd have trouble winning a single electoral vote.  It would also make him look erratic and impulsive to the general public so he'd just completely bomb in the popular vote too.

There were a lot of older women who were happy about today's victory, but felt a twinge of sadness that it was not their hour.  As a student told me today, it has always been the black man before the woman.  First to get the vote (14th Amendment for black men, 19th Amendment for women), and so we wait once again.  Don't forget it was Frederick Douglass who spoke up at Seneca Falls to agree with Elizabeth Cady Stanton's insane notion that women should have the right to vote in 1848, but then said, "It is the Negro's hour" when it was time to pass the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, arguing that women (regardless of color) should wait because they did not need the vote as much as black men did.  Today women still have to face the fact that they are different based on biology.  Hence the ridiculous discussions of pantsuits, make up and hair, "Who is going to watch the kids, etc." that a woman has to deal with when running for office.  Women still take more time off of their careers to raise children, and unless they opt out of marriage and kids, lag behind men in their careers for that reason.  Unfortunately, most people view the person who is primarily responsible for rocking the cradle as too weak and emotional to rule the world, and for those women who opt out of that responsiblity, too "sexually suspect" to achieve high office.  Women have to become like men to become president, and then they are denounced as too aggressive, shrill, bitchy, whatever.  I think we'll see a gay man president before we see a woman as commander in chief.

I appreciated Kate’s thoughtful post on how painful it’s occasionally been to be a woman during this

I was an Obama supporter from the beginning, but was just wondering if anybody else gets tired of seeing the little clip montages of the black civil rights movement on television (i saw 3 today) or historians referencing definitive moments in black American history that are completely male dominated? I feel like that's all I've seen today as if the movement was completely male, which we very well know wasn't. The movement was actually impossible without the integral part women played in the matter.

Fun Fact: Doesn't anyone talk about Chisholm in 72? she was the first African American woman elected to Congress AND the first major-party African American candidate for President.

Maybe I'm a dopey white male and a bit younger than you guys, but I don't think we're "post" anything.

Porkido, sweetheart - chill :-).  Savour the sweet smell of success - no irony intended - and be magnanimous in victory.  You can - we all can.  Not too much - not enough to give the Palin a pass - but now is not the time for recriminations.  And if some people are wistful - that's OK.  

Duillier: I'm there with you buddy.  My advice to you?  Move to Canada; we'd love to have you, and all gay and lesbian Americans, coming up here, marrying and having (or adopting) children ... one drawback: divorce rates are already matching the het society ...

(If I sound as if I am full of milk of human kindness, it's a passing moment - I'll get over it - just mention "Palin" and I start twitching ....)

McGumb: "I don't think we have reached a point that women and minorities aren't stereotyped and held to different standards, as open-minded you gentlemen all are."  As a minority, and as someone who has had female bosses for most of the last fifteen years, I know exactly what you mean.  I have to run twice as fast to stay in the same place relative to my "white" colleagues (I"m Caucasian but tanned), and my female bosses have had to do the same relative to their male counterparts ... but you know something, it's OK.  I'm used to it (and so are they) - builds character and all that.  This too shall pass; as Psant said, one step at a time ... and Obama's victory last night will be a huge step.

thank you, ca180. I completely agree. Though the gay thing might be pushing it, people in California were pulling the lever for hope while simultaneously pulling another lever for fear.

Cal80 says "it has always been the black man before the woman.  First to get the vote (14th Amendment for black men, 19th Amendment for women), and so we wait once again."  In theory, but in practice there were the poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. necessitating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Really, women were enfranchised 1st.

Icarusr, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I'm a 44 year old woman who has done OK by staying true to myself but I certainly encountered sexism in my efforts and have witnessed prejudiced against people of color. Most of my bosses have been white men who surround themselves with and promote white men. I have had a couple white women as bosses and they were more prejudiced then the white men. They wanted to be the only woman. Being true to myself meant starting my own company - I think this happens to a lot of women and minorities in corporate America. We don't fit into a white bred (male dominated) world.

I have been psyched to support Obama since late December. Not a huge Hillary supporter yet not a hater either...except when she was pulling that crap in the primary. I've weeped for the last two days at Obama's election. I'm so proud and so excited - euphoric.

Electing Obama is a huge deal and a huge step forward but it's not the end of racism or sexism. Women still only make 77 cents on the dollar. . We just learned that women pay more for health care. Medical research is conducted on white men and expected to apply to women and minorities (it doesn't). Women's basketball is not as respected as men's!!! I could go on.......

I don't want to pick a fight with you, Icarusr. I've enjoyed and respected your posts for months. There hasn't been a thing I've disagreed with you on. And even now. But your experience is not mine: Ottawa is not DC nor is it Michigan or Asia. Gen X/ Baby Boomers are not Millennials. The world is getting (much) better but we humans still actualizing.

I still weep with joy at Obama's election.  

duillier, as a CA res I was trying to make peace with the fact the we voted for more rights for chickens and took rights away from gays on the same day.  As far as I know there is no zero-sum situation, just worked out that way.  On an otherwise great day I tried (successfully) not to let it get me down.

As s SWM, its probably a mistake to comment on any of the -isms, but the champagne is going down so smooth and fresh off the big win, what could go wrong?  I think women have more difficulty in a campaign where they must avoid the stereotypes that trigger rejection in people's minds.  For BO he can't get angry.  Well, no biggie, that's not his temperment and he has unearthly patience and self control.  Basically any "black" stereotype he can negate just by being hiumself.

Women have a more complicated set of stereotypes to disarm or avoid.  The emotional thing is a trap.  Too much emotion and you're some impulsive, emotion-driven lunatic.  Too little and you're frigid.  etc.  It doesn't help that most men have witnessed with their own eyes a woman they know go completely batshit, rabbit on the stove, insane.

I think Hill and Palin both avoided getting pigeon-holed into these types of stereotypes although some things like the Hillary campaign "drama" that was talked about fed it some.  The other big obstacle is that woman seem to be tougher on each other than men are.  I point to most any Palin poll where responses are differentiated by gender.

Last point: Palin's presence was a major setback to women's rights. (This awareness may explain the second sentence in last para.) If she'd won it would have been disasterous.  Reason: Imagine you are not entirely convince that blacks should be doing X job.  Company hires black employee for X job, but instead of hiring someone trained in X, they hire someone without a HS diploma.  Worker fails in job, Everyone who thought poorly of blacks are vindicated even thought numerous qualified candidates existed.

Same with Palin.  BYard's point that this tactic (strategy?) was sniffed out and rejected.  Thus limiting her damage to her fellow sisters (lifted that from mcg).

So I guess my point is that we'll have a straight chicken elected pres before a gay, black chicken, statistically speaking.  Nate has all the details over on minusfivethirtyeightfahrenheitinhell.com.  Its really a great site, be sure to check it out.

I just reread that and it might have come off a little insensitive.  Maybe its best i just delete it and maybe rethink it in the morning.  where's that delete button....There it-

Damn, didn't see that coming.  Well, hopefully newsweek will keep their promise and not leak that til AFTER the election.

Congratulations to the Obama campaign and all of us that feel a part of it, me included.  And anyone who says it just wasn't ___________'s time, it was Obama's time.  Well that may be true, but along with it being his time, he ran the most effective campaign of our time.  He didn't panic when many of us were.  He saw it was his time and he did everything in his power to seize it.  When we were hysterical over the impending Palin steamrolling, he calmly built his organizations in states that weren't battlegrounds at the time.  In short, He earned it.  We earned it.

Or more poetically: Fortune favors the bold.

Thank you, boatsrwood, for mentioning Shirley Chisholm. No one has talked about her this election season and I'm utterly flabbergasted by it. Is she really already "ancient history"?

But my main point: women are not monolithic. The sooner we get past the myth of "the black community," "the Hispanic community," "the women's vote," etc.,  the better. If there ever was such a thing, we're past it. (Sorry, CNN)

Not enough was said in the column about how badly the cause of woman in leadrsship was set back by a winking & wigling Sara Palin, 'nuff said.

McGumbleton, I admire you for taking matters into your own hands in response to workplace discrimination.

I typically don't experience it, but there are a couple of places where I have.  In both instances I was a phone sales rep where there were few women in the next step up, outside sales.  Outside sales is a really low place to set the glass ceiling.  It's not even management, 50% of which I believe is populated by % women.

In a few more environments I've been irked by the constant football and golf metaphors used to illustrate company and employee performance objectives.  Yes, plenty of women follow both, and they can and do chatter away about their football team to their heart's content.  But I still think those are more male dominated themes and have made me feel left out if not necessarily discriminated against.

McGum: was not being sarcastic; it's my defence mechanism, trying to make sense of the world without becoming bitter about it all.  And of course out experiences are highly context-specific - again, did not mean to extrapolate to the world.  Thanks for the kind words - and certainly, we're on the same page.

satyendra and icarusr,

thanks for the kind words and sorry i got so defensive (she says sheepishly)

I suppose it was disappointing if you want to see everything as "gender politics".  Hillary was a poor candidate on the merits, a mediocre campaigner, who is very unlikely even to be sitting in the senate but for her marriage to Bill Clinton.  She was rejected on the merits.  That seems to me to be an advance for women although, toward the end, Hillary did her best to use her gender to achieve a different outcome -- the exact opposite of what Obama did to very good effect.  He showed the way.  Hopefully the next female candidate for the highest office in the country will learn the lesson.  On the flip side, the bid of the McCain campaign to use Palin to attract women was also rejected soundly, by women, who were properly insulted at the idea that they should be expected to vote for someone so unfit merely because she is a woman and to be caricatured in that way.

If the goal is for women to be viewed as people and politicians and not as representatives of their sex with peculiar liabilities and expectations that attach only to them, then I don't see anything to be disappointed about.  Just the reverse.

It's an absolute disgrace the way "feminists" treated Palin.  Obviously politics trumps actual sex.  Here's a successful woman running an entire state, selected to be candidate for VP of the greatest country in the world.  And the only thing those scum jerks can sing is how she's not pro-abortion and is some evil woman who probably had incest and had 15 kids by 20 different fathers.  Absolutely sick.  I look at her life and her record and she has lived one of the most righteous lives one can imagine.  Bringing to term a baby who has Down's syndrome.  Dealing with her daughter's unplanned pregnancy with grace and class.  Being happily married with children.  All the while clearing corruption in Alaska and running an entire state.

And her reward is to get slammed by feminazis who've done shit for anyone but themselves? Who revel in their own pleasures and their own freedoms, never thinking about anyone other than themselves (kids, husbands)? Glorfiying their own way of life and not understanding when others want to live an American-as-apple-pie way of life?

They showed their true colors and it's pretty damned ugly.

Obama is a unifier.  Hillary and Bill  were and are as divisive as all hell.

It's about time we stopped dividing all politics into gender, race and class.  Obama didn't win because he is black and Hillary didn't lose because she is a woman.

Let's put the emphasis where it belongs, on where the candidates stand on the important issues.  I'm tired of analysis that can't look beyond race, class and gender.

ummm....the last time I checked, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was still a woman !

And she rose to that August position without being the wife of the previous Speaker.

Now, there's a feminist landmark that everyone seems to have ignored

I agree with anybody who said we're not "post" anything. It's a continuum, and a black prez is a good thing for the races thing - in fact Obama being on everybody's tee vee and showing the people who need to see it that black guys can be smart, responsible, paternal, nonviolent, whatever the opposite of the negative stereotype is - that is priceless all by itself. To think that Everything's Fine Now! is of course asanine - and welcome to the world of tee vee pundits - but does this help? Hell yeah.

But, duh, this is not a dis to women. If HRC were as effing awesome as BHO, then I would have supported her. She wasn't, I didn't, end of story. I'm not a self-hating white chick, I swear. And this particular job is too important to just do "nontraditional casting" to make some people feel better at the expense of the country [I'm looking at you, John McTraitor].

Mcgumb- I'm 44 too and I think so is Wandrey and so is Michelle Obama and so is Sarah Palin.  And of course BHO will be #44 - oooooh, creeeepy!

joelsherman

You're kiddng right? Take away Obama's black votes (national black vote for Obama = 95% x (2008 Black turnout - 2004 black turnout) =

and you have them at a virtual tie.  It took a massive enthusiasm mobilization and a few acorns to defeat McCain after 8 years of what you people call "the worst of times. "

More important than whether women can now compete on an equal footing with men, it's whether the media can give women a fair hearing.  The media's unmercifull attacks on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin contributed heavily to their failure in this election cycle.  No doubt they made serious errors (but so did Obama) in their campaigns, but the media's criticism was unprecedented and unrelenting on these women (while giving Obama a pass).    

jwl2672, no I'm not kidding.  Black voters always vote democratic in large numbers, so that was no different than always.  The only major gain was through registration drives which is fair play.

Every election has scurrilous attacks on all the candidates.  There was lots to attack  both women candidates for without even mentioning gender.  As I said, if Hillary had won the nomination, she'd be president elect now. There were lots of scurrilous attacks on McCain too.  Is that OK because he's a white male?

Just stick to the issues.  I couldn't care less what a candidates race, gender or class is.  I only care what their positions are on major policies.  They were both evasive enough on that.